Labour List MP Louisa Wall, sponsor of the Marriage (Redefinition of Marriage) Bill which renders the concepts of “marriage”, “mother” “father”, “bride” and “bridegroom” meaningless by its proposed amendments to the Marriage Act 1955, has stated, dogmatically:
“I’ve never not been out. I think I realised I was gay in my late teens and from then on I’ve had female partners. For me, it’s always been a part of who I am, so I’ve never felt a need not to share that.” [Emphasis added].
The vast majority of New Zealanders will genuinely struggle to comprehend the meaning of her claims. Whilst apparently sincere, they appear imaginery and fictional. She is so very dogmatic! – “I’ve never not been out“. Presumably she actually believes she has been a lesbian from birth – i.e. ‘hard-wired’ genetically to be sexually attracted only to women. If so, she has never provided any evidence for this and such a claim is not supported in the scientific literature (i.e. empirical scientific proof of the existence of a so-called gay gene).
What then do her dogmatic claims actually mean, if anything? They appear to be meaningless and delusional. For a start she contradicts her claim about never not being “out” when she says she thinks she first came to the realisation of her ‘orientation’ in her “late teens” and only “from then on .. had female partners.” Perhaps she could tell the public how she knows as a fact that her lesbian ‘sexual orientation’ already existed from her infancy to “late teens”.
If a heterosexual male sportsman claimed in an interview with Woman’s Weekly that he had “never not been out as heterosexual”, would any of the thousands of discerning, rational-minded scholarly readers of the magazine have queried the meaning of such a claim and/or perhaps even raised queries about the validity or truthfulness of this claim? Of course they would, many of them no doubt! Some might have wondered if he had suffered a “brain fade” like John Key or David Shearer, not regarding an investment portfolio or a failure to disclose a pecuniary interest to parliament, but with regard to his sexual identity.
This example illustrates how homosexuals have captured the language by using words such as “out” and denoting a ‘meaning’ to it that serves the exclusive homosexual agenda, but makes no sense when used by a heterosexual. A whole series of oxymorons arise when such words are used together with the word “heterosexual”: e.g. “gay-heterosexual” and “out-heterosexual”. The absurdity of the concept of “gay-marriage”/ “same-sex marriage” is plain to see for any rational person who has not been seduced/taken-in by the emotional appeal/deception of the pro-“same-sex marriage” homosexual activists.
But is it even possible for a heterosexual to “out” himself or herself? Clearly homosexuals do “it” on a regular basis, on national TV etc. to score international headlines. But the very idea of a Maori sports-star MP “outing” himself/herself to colleagues in parliament in a Maiden Speech, as a heterosexual i.e. confessing one’s attraction to persons of the opposite sex, is preposterous! So why have MPs and the New Zealand public tolerated and applauded the ‘courage’ and “honesty’ of current Labour homosexual MPs such as Louisa Wall and Maryan Street, and Green MP Kevin Hague, for using the vehicle of the House of Representatives to “out” themselves to the New Zealand public? Why have these homosexuals felt it necessary to foist such ‘important’ information related to their intimate private affairs-‘sexual orientation’, onto the rest of us using the platform of parliament?
Clearly such well-orchestrated homosexual disclosures, are part of a deliberate political agenda – driven by highly questionable tactics and ethics – to use parliament to secure alleged “human rights” for a “gay” minority – a class defined only by its sexual activities involving same-sex attraction rather than opposite sex attraction. The “social change” these activists champion is fixated in sex – on their so-called “human-rights” agenda that if accepted and enshrined into law, will normalise sodomy and other practices engaged in by homosexuals and ‘elevate’ (so they believe) them to a new status on a par with heterosexual marriage. It is all part of the plan to try and destigmatise homosexual sexual practices and gain acceptance for their lifestyle.
The homosexual crusade for “gay rights” including “same-sex marriage”, is based on a series of false premises such as the claim that “marriage equality is a human right”. Contrary to their delusional claims, heterosexual marriage is fundamentally different from homosexual ‘marriage’, as the former involves the union of opposite sexes, while the latter does not. Equality does NOT mean the same in the context of marriage, as they falsely claim.
All people of the same sex do not have equal rights to get married, as a number of categories (see Schedule 2 of the Act) among those of the same sex (e.g. men) are excluded. For example, under the Civil union law and under the proposed bill, a man A cannot marry his same-sex civil union partner’s father (father of B), subsequent to and in the event of A-B’s same-sex civil union (or ‘marriage’) being dissolved. The law forbids it. However, another man, unrelated to A and B can marry B’s father under the proposed bill.
Women’s Weekly reported:
“The 41-year-old’s passion for social change is what led her [Louisa Wall] into politics.
“Already in a civil union with partner Prue Tamatekapua , a lawyer specialising in Treaty of Waitangi issues, the couple first met through the Maori Women’s Welfare League in 2007.
“The new bill will mean that couples in a civil union can simply fill in a form to change their status to that of a married couple. But Louisa and Prue aren’t going down that route.
“Louisa and mother-of-two Prue had their ceremony at Te Mahurehure Marae in Point Chevalier, Auckland, where 200 guests helped celebrate their union in 2010.
“While comfortable with her own personal situation, Louisa believes it’s vitally important for individuals and couples to have options. “We made the decision to have a civil union, but for Charles Chauvel [a gay Labour MP] and his partner, that wasn’t good enough – they decided to go to Canada and get married.”
“… there is only one thing missing in Louisa’s life – a baby. While she would love to be a mother and has tried to conceive in the past, her efforts have been unsuccessful.”
Here we learn that Louisa and her partner Prue Tamatekapua have no intention of changing their civil union relationship to a marriage, even if Wall’s legally flawed bill becomes law. Instead of fighting for hers and Prue’s right’s, Louisa says she is fighting for the rights of other homosexuals to be able to get married. If so, Prue and Louise will never be “spouses” in law, if the bill becomes law, and will be unable to adopt children as a same-sex couple. With the biological clock ticking any woman (lesbian or heterosexual), truly wanting to have her own baby, will need the ‘services’ of at least one person from the opposite sex known as “male” to produce a child.
The term “same-sex marriage” is meaningless once the real unique distinction (relative to other types of relationships) of marriage, based on the exclusive one male-one-female nature of the relationship, is broken down by adding same-sex couples to the traditional marriage mix. For this reason there must remain a separate category-status distinction in law that recognises marriage as an exclusive relationship between two opposite sex partners.
Source of quotes:
Labour MP Louisa Wall: Fighting for our rights. By Vicky Tyler
Women’s Weekly. 28th March 2013